"The Audacity of Hope" or "The Audacity of Ambition"

by John Sampson

Posted by Steve Marquis on October 29, 2008

So much has been debated about whether or not Barack H. Obama II is or is not a Natural Born US citizen. The problem is that so many people are totally uninformed as to the law as it existed in 1961 as it relates to the transmission of citizenship to a child born outside the US or its Outlying Possessions (OLP).

In an effort to clear the air, to get the FACTS out so people can clearly see the issue without opining or guessing as to the legalities, allow me to pontificate a bit. For the record, I am a recently retired Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, with more than 25 years experience. Part of that experience is understanding and comprehending immigration and nationality law which is at the center of this issue. In short, I know a "little bit" about what I speak of.

In 1961, as opposed to TODAY, Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA) required the following: A child being born to one alien parent (i.e.. Non Citizen) and one citizen parent in a marital relationship, required that the sole US citizen parent to have resided in the United States for a period of ten years, five of which must have been over the age of 14. Today's version of the law has somewhat different residency requirements for the US citizen parent. But the law, as it applied on August 4, 1961, required ten years presence, five after the age of 14.

Barack Hussein Obama I (dad), was a citizen and national of Kenya. He was not, nor had never been, a United States citizen. Ergo, he is the "alien" parent in this scenario. Stanley Ann Dunham (mom) was a US citizen by virtue of having been born in the US. At the time of Barack Hussein Obama II's birth on August 4, 1961, Ms. Dunham was 18 years old, having been born in November of 1942. As such, if Barack Hussein Obama II was born outside the US or its Outlying Possessions, on August 4, 1961, then Ms. Dunham could not transmit her citizenship to her son because she failed to have accumulated the necessary physical presence requirements that the LAW (that pesky and inconvenient thing that oftentimes gets in the way of "change") demanded.

The earliest in which Ms. Dunham could have transmitted her citizenship to a child born outside the US would have been when she was 19 years of age, which was in November of 1961 and NOT in August of 1961, when Obama was born.

It's that simple. If he was born in Kenya, or anywhere else for that matter, other than the US or its OLP's, then he is not, nor can never be, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America inasmuch as he does not, nor never can, fulfill the requirements of Article II, Clause V of the Constitution of the United States. It's not an optional thing, regardless of whether or not someone thinks it's fair or not. It's the law, that pesky, recurring inconvenience that seems to get in the way, time and time again.

Now, the question remains to be answered if he was born in Kenya or not. The State of Hawaii has weighed in and states that there is a record of Mr. Obama's birth on file in the Department of Vital Statistics. However, THAT is not enough. There are two entirely different and distinct birth documents issued by the State of Hawaii.

The first is a Certificate of Live Birth which is the traditional birth certificate we all are familiar with for children born IN Hawaii.

Then there is a different document entitled Certification of Live Birth, which is issued to children born OUTSIDE of Hawaii but whose birth is registered in Hawaii pursuant to a quaint and scarcely known Hawaiian law, Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8. This law allows for the registration of a birth in Hawaii for a child who was born OUTSIDE Hawaii to parents who, for the year immediately preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their principle place of residence.

Dunham and Obama Sr. both resided in Hawaii for the year immediately preceding Senator Obama's birth. Ergo sum, his birth, even if it occurred in Kenya, could legally be registered in Hawaii, and a Certification of Live Birth could have been issued, giving the uninitiated the impression that he was born in Hawaii when in fact, he was not.

It is misleading when the State of Hawaii states that they have examined Obama's birth record and it is valid. It could very well be the case. The ISSUE however, is whether or not he was born in Hawaii as he claims, or if he was born in Kenya. There is of course, a plausible scenario in which he could've been born in Kenya and yet have his birth recorded in Hawaii as having been born in Hawaii when in fact he was not. It's quite simple actually. His mother could have lied. That's right. Ann Dunham could have given birth in Kenya, brought Obama back with her to the US and then fraudulently registered the birth in Hawaii. Is it likely? Who knows? Is it possible? As Sir Aruthur Coynan Doyle has written: Once you have eliminated what is impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, is possible.

In this case, anything is possible. And it's so unfortunate that all but one relative on Ms. Dunham's side of the family are deceased. His maternal grandmother, who he conveniently just visited in Hawaii, is the one living relative that could possibly shed light on this subject. A simple question asking her if her daughter went to Kenya prior to Barack's birth would end the speculation, assuming of course, her response is truthful. And therein lies the rub. With so much fraud being perpetrated by the DailyKOS, Stop the Smears, and others, it's difficult to believe anything at this point.

And isn't it oh so convenient that Obama goes to Hawaii on October 23, 2008 and the Hawaiian Department of Health, after his visit to Hawaii, issues the statement that the document they have is legitimate. The wording of their statement leaves a lot to be desired. It's a non answer to a question. Yes, the document is valid. And? Was he born in Hawaii?????? Silence.

The now infamous document posted on Stop the Smears and the DailyKOS, which has been determined to be a forgery by no fewer than three court certified Forensic Document Examiners, was a Certification of Live Birth and NOT a Certificate of Live Birth or Birth Certificate. However, in an effort to obfuscate the issue, the term "Birth Certificate" has been used interchangeably with "Certification of Live Birth".

Assuming that Mr. Obama has a legitimate Certification of Live Birth, the question must be asked: "Why post a forgery?" The answer is as follows:

A: There does not exist a legitimate, authentic birth document for Obama showing birth anywhere in the US.


B: He does have a legitimate Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii. However, that document shows his place of birth as being in Mombassa, Kenya and NOT in Hawaii as the forged copy claims.

What is troubling and frustrating is that Obama can, and has had the ability to do so for quite some time, resolve this matter by simply providing a certified copy of his authentic birth document. The only reason that is reasonable for his failure to do so is that he simply doesn't have a document that shows he was born in the US. His documents all show birth in Kenya.

As to his Indonesian passport, that, in and of itself, is problematic for Obama. In order to have obtained Indonesian citizenship, which is the only way one legitimately gets an Indonesian passport, he must have renounced his US citizenship, assuming for a moment, that he was, in fact a US citizen at any time. The fact that he renounced his US citizenship in order to obtain citizenship in Indonesian also makes him ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Clause V of the Constitution of the United States.

Look. The facts and the law, are just that, the facts and the law. Wishing it wasn't so, being upset that the law is the way it was in 1961, wishing that people wouldn't bring that pesky inconvenient issue of the law, won't change a thing. Mr. Obama, like it or not, whether you think it's fair or not, if born outside the US, is NOT, nor never can be, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Period. End of discussion.

IF, in fact, he was born in Kenya, as it appears he very well was, then his continued candidacy and the acceptance of campaign funds and donations, is a fraud. Furthermore, this issue is likely to throw this country into a Constitutional crisis, the likes of which we have never seen, making the elections of 2000 and 2004 look tame by comparison. And don't you think Obama knows whether or not he was born in the US or not?

He wrote a book entitled "The Audacity of Hope". Perhaps it should have been entitled "The Audacity of Ambition".